"scott s." wrote in messagework with the United States.""Everything will probably never be OK. But we have to tryfor it."Dmitry Peskov, Mr Putin's official spokesman, tells itlike it is: "Britain is 'just a small island . no onepays any attention to them.'"

Mr Peskov never said that. It was a psyop implemented by BBC and The Telegraphoutlets likely on request from the UK government. Mr Cameron wanted to promotethe UK in a pompous speech during G20 summit in St Pete at the time.

I think, the British government started to feel that its role in the worldaffairs is somewhat declining, and tried to 'improve' the situation through aPR effort. Mr Cameron needed a pretext for that. Thus, the mass media folksfabricated the fiction of the alleged Peskov's statement in order to make theCameron's speech look like a noble answer to a blunt Russian insult.

Read more here <http://tinyurl.com/ztm8eqm>, <http://archive.is/UUsDn>.Most of the British believe it was really said. Since then, this 'small island'has become a kind of meme, and people like Byker use it to troll the British.

Post by Oleg SmirnovMr Peskov never said that. It was a psyop implemented by BBC and TheTelegraph outlets likely on request from the UK government. Mr Cameronwanted to promote the UK in a pompous speech during G20 summit in St Peteat the time.

Set this one straight, then. From "Russia and the West: Putin Takes Control"on the National Geographic Channel: When Putin asked if Russia could joinNATO, he was told he could apply like everyone else, but he allegedlyreplied that he would not "stand in a queue behind other little countries."

Post by Oleg SmirnovMr Peskov never said that. It was a psyop implemented by BBC and TheTelegraph outlets likely on request from the UK government. Mr Cameronwanted to promote the UK in a pompous speech during G20 summit in St Peteat the time.

Set this one straight, then. From "Russia and the West: Putin Takes Control"on the National Geographic Channel: When Putin asked if Russia could joinNATO, he was told he could apply like everyone else, but he allegedlyreplied that he would not "stand in a queue behind other little countries."

The USA would demand to be put at the head ofany line too - a matter of pride.

Post by Oleg SmirnovMr Peskov never said that. It was a psyop implemented by BBC and TheTelegraph outlets likely on request from the UK government. Mr Cameronwanted to promote the UK in a pompous speech during G20 summit in St Peteat the time.

Set this one straight, then. From "Russia and the West: Putin Takes Control"on the National Geographic Channel: When Putin asked if Russia could joinNATO, he was told he could apply like everyone else, but he allegedlyreplied that he would not "stand in a queue behind other little countries."

The USA would demand to be put at the head ofany line too - a matter of pride.

Post by Oleg SmirnovMr Peskov never said that. It was a psyop implemented by BBC and TheTelegraph outlets likely on request from the UK government. Mr Cameronwanted to promote the UK in a pompous speech during G20 summit in St Peteat the time.

Set this one straight, then. From "Russia and the West: Putin Takes Control"on the National Geographic Channel: When Putin asked if Russia could joinNATO, he was told he could apply like everyone else, but he allegedlyreplied that he would not "stand in a queue behind other little countries."

The USA would demand to be put at the head ofany line too - a matter of pride.

and all shall have prizes*..except syria and chechnya and georgia and ukraine...

Um ... Russia and the Chechnyans were at itlong before anybody'd heard of Putin.

Russia and the Assad family were tight longbefore anybody'd heard of Putin.

And the only reason eastern Ukraine wasn'tpart of Russia was because of where thecommies drew convenient lines onadministrative maps before they got the boot.Nobody in eastern Ukraine/Crimea wanted tobe called a "Ukrainian".

Post by Oleg SmirnovMr Peskov never said that. It was a psyop implemented by BBC and TheTelegraph outlets likely on request from the UK government. Mr Cameronwanted to promote the UK in a pompous speech during G20 summit in St Peteat the time.

Set this one straight, then. From "Russia and the West: Putin Takes Control"on the National Geographic Channel: When Putin asked if Russia could joinNATO, he was told he could apply like everyone else, but he allegedlyreplied that he would not "stand in a queue behind other little countries."

The USA would demand to be put at the head ofany line too - a matter of pride.

I am British. Queue jumpers should be punished.

I accept this is a matter of pride, so 10 times as important means 10times the punishment.

Post by Oleg SmirnovMr Peskov never said that. It was a psyop implemented by BBC and TheTelegraph outlets likely on request from the UK government. Mr Cameronwanted to promote the UK in a pompous speech during G20 summit in St Peteat the time.

Set this one straight, then. From "Russia and the West: Putin Takes Control"on the National Geographic Channel: When Putin asked if Russia could joinNATO, he was told he could apply like everyone else, but he allegedlyreplied that he would not "stand in a queue behind other little countries."

The USA would demand to be put at the head ofany line too - a matter of pride.

I am British. Queue jumpers should be punished.

And now we know why there's no BritishEmpire anymore :-)

Post by Andrew SwallowI accept this is a matter of pride, so 10 times as important means 10times the punishment.

Poor Oleg. You really don't get it.Most Brits have never heard of Peskov.They have no idea what was said or what wasn't said.Russia doesn't feature heavily in their thoughts.One might even say that most Brits don't care about Russia.Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

Such a reaction is symptomatic to illustrate how the wounded Britishnationalist-imperialist pride works. It's very primitive. Real situation israther the opposite, when there was a storm of righteous indignation in theBritish national mass media, nobody in Russia noticed that, because the BBC /Telegraph's fiction was primarily intended to cheat domestic public. Andtoday most of the Russians have no idea about the story, I personally amnot typical in this sense because I'm reading English-speaking media closely.Recently the British myth was developed further: The Telegraph is lying nowthat Putin personally said it, not his spokesman <http://archive.is/UUsDn>.

Most of the 'imperialist' British boobs who respond to this story usuallystaunchly avoid to discuss the very fact of fiction, but instead are tryingto argue that they are great but not a small island :)

Poor Oleg. You really don't get it.Most Brits have never heard of Peskov.They have no idea what was said or what wasn't said.Russia doesn't feature heavily in their thoughts.One might even say that most Brits don't care about Russia.Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

Such a reaction is symptomatic to illustrate how the wounded Britishnationalist-imperialist pride works. It's very primitive. Real situation israther the opposite, when there was a storm of righteous indignation in theBritish national mass media, nobody in Russia noticed that, because the BBC/Telegraph's fiction was primarily intended to cheat domestic public. Andtoday most of the Russians have no idea about the story, I personally amnot typical in this sense because I'm reading English-speaking mediaclosely.Recently the British myth was developed further: The Telegraph is lying nowthat Putin personally said it, not his spokesman <http://archive.is/UUsDn>.

Most of the 'imperialist' British boobs who respond to this story usuallystaunchly avoid to discuss the very fact of fiction, but instead are tryingto argue that they are great but not a small island :)

===========

Oleg, I am sorry if it offends you, but DVH is correct in all he said.

Poor Oleg. You really don't get it.Most Brits have never heard of Peskov.They have no idea what was said or what wasn't said.Russia doesn't feature heavily in their thoughts.One might even say that most Brits don't care aboutRussia. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

Such a reaction is symptomatic to illustrate how thewounded British nationalist-imperialist pride works. It'svery primitive. Real situation is rather the opposite,when there was a storm of righteous indignation in theBritish national mass media, nobody in Russia noticedthat, because the BBC /Telegraph's fiction was primarily intended to cheatdomestic public. And today most of the Russians have noidea about the story, I personally am not typical in thissense because I'm reading English-speaking media closely.Recently the British myth was developed further: TheTelegraph is lying now that Putin personally said it, nothis spokesman <http://archive.is/UUsDn>.Most of the 'imperialist' British boobs who respond tothis story usually staunchly avoid to discuss the veryfact of fiction, but instead are trying to argue thatthey are great but not a small island :)===========Oleg, I am sorry if it offends you, but DVH is correct inall he said.

What DVH said is a sort of psychological defence, andyou can't expect I take your claims since I can observethe situation on the whole from many various sources.

Poor Oleg. You really don't get it.Most Brits have never heard of Peskov.They have no idea what was said or what wasn't said.Russia doesn't feature heavily in their thoughts.One might even say that most Brits don't care aboutRussia. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

Such a reaction is symptomatic to illustrate how thewounded British nationalist-imperialist pride works. It'svery primitive. Real situation is rather the opposite,when there was a storm of righteous indignation in theBritish national mass media, nobody in Russia noticedthat, because the BBC /Telegraph's fiction was primarily intended to cheatdomestic public. And today most of the Russians have noidea about the story, I personally am not typical in thissense because I'm reading English-speaking media closely.Recently the British myth was developed further: TheTelegraph is lying now that Putin personally said it, nothis spokesman <http://archive.is/UUsDn>.Most of the 'imperialist' British boobs who respond tothis story usually staunchly avoid to discuss the veryfact of fiction, but instead are trying to argue thatthey are great but not a small island :)===========Oleg, I am sorry if it offends you, but DVH is correct inall he said.

What DVH said is a sort of psychological defence, andyou can't expect I take your claims since I can observethe situation on the whole from many various sources.

Poor Oleg. You really don't get it.Most Brits have never heard of Peskov.They have no idea what was said or what wasn't said.Russia doesn't feature heavily in their thoughts.One might even say that most Brits don't care aboutRussia. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

Such a reaction is symptomatic to illustrate how thewounded British nationalist-imperialist pride works.It's very primitive. Real situation is rather theopposite, when there was a storm of righteousindignation in the British national mass media, nobodyin Russia noticed that, because the BBC /Telegraph's fiction was primarily intended to cheatdomestic public. And today most of the Russians have noidea about the story, I personally am not typical inthis sense because I'm reading English-speaking mediaclosely. Recently the British myth was developedfurther: The Telegraph is lying now that Putinpersonally said it, not his spokesman<http://archive.is/UUsDn>.Most of the 'imperialist' British boobs who respond tothis story usually staunchly avoid to discuss the veryfact of fiction, but instead are trying to argue thatthey are great but not a small island :)===========Oleg, I am sorry if it offends you, but DVH is correctin all he said.

What DVH said is a sort of psychological defence, andyou can't expect I take your claims since I can observethe situation on the whole from many various sources.

Really, nobody cares.

Your MSM reminds your about the small island, Byker is trollingabout the small island, and when I point out that all this isbased on the British own fiction, you argue that nobody cares.It looks pathetic. If nobody cares then why are you trying totell me so insistently that nobody cares? It's nothing but apsychological defence / blocking. BBC's Nick Robinson knew wellwhat buttons to push to manipulate the British.

Only because you seem to think that we do and you have been bangihg on about it for ages. If I ever read anything about it in the newspapers it was long ago and I've forgotten. What I do know is that you seem to consider it significant. I'm interested to hear your angle on a lot of things, but in this case you are just misfiring.

Poor Oleg. You really don't get it.Most Brits have never heard of Peskov.They have no idea what was said or what wasn't said.Russia doesn't feature heavily in their thoughts.One might even say that most Brits don't care aboutRussia. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

Such a reaction is symptomatic to illustrate how thewounded British nationalist-imperialist pride works.It's very primitive. Real situation is rather theopposite, when there was a storm of righteousindignation in the British national mass media, nobodyin Russia noticed that, because the BBC /Telegraph's fiction was primarily intended to cheatdomestic public. And today most of the Russians have noidea about the story, I personally am not typical inthis sense because I'm reading English-speaking mediaclosely. Recently the British myth was developedfurther: The Telegraph is lying now that Putinpersonally said it, not his spokesman<http://archive.is/UUsDn>.Most of the 'imperialist' British boobs who respond tothis story usually staunchly avoid to discuss the veryfact of fiction, but instead are trying to argue thatthey are great but not a small island :)===========Oleg, I am sorry if it offends you, but DVH is correctin all he said.

What DVH said is a sort of psychological defence, andyou can't expect I take your claims since I can observethe situation on the whole from many various sources.

Really, nobody cares.

Your MSM reminds your about the small island, Byker is trollingabout the small island, and when I point out that all this isbased on the British own fiction, you argue that nobody cares.It looks pathetic. If nobody cares then why are you trying totell me so insistently that nobody cares? It's nothing but apsychological defence / blocking. BBC's Nick Robinson knew wellwhat buttons to push to manipulate the British.

Poor Oleg. You really don't get it.Most Brits have never heard of Peskov.They have no idea what was said or what wasn't said.Russia doesn't feature heavily in their thoughts.One might even say that most Brits don't care aboutRussia. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

Such a reaction is symptomatic to illustrate how thewounded British nationalist-imperialist pride works. It'svery primitive. Real situation is rather the opposite,when there was a storm of righteous indignation in theBritish national mass media, nobody in Russia noticedthat, because the BBC / Telegraph's fiction was primarily intended tocheatdomestic public. And today most of the Russians have noidea about the story, I personally am not typical in thissense because I'm reading English-speaking media closely.Recently the British myth was developed further: TheTelegraph is lying now that Putin personally said it, nothis spokesman <http://archive.is/UUsDn>.Most of the 'imperialist' British boobs who respond tothis story usually staunchly avoid to discuss the veryfact of fiction, but instead are trying to argue thatthey are great but not a small island :)===========Oleg, I am sorry if it offends you, but DVH is correct inall he said.

What DVH said is a sort of psychological defence, andyou can't expect I take your claims since I can observethe situation on the whole from many various sources.

============

I can't argue with that, but I am fairly well politically aware and I havenever heard of Peskov until you wrote about him/her,

Poor Oleg. You really don't get it.Most Brits have never heard of Peskov.They have no idea what was said or what wasn't said.Russia doesn't feature heavily in their thoughts.One might even say that most Brits don't care aboutRussia. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

Such a reaction is symptomatic to illustrate how thewounded British nationalist-imperialist pride works. It'svery primitive. Real situation is rather the opposite,when there was a storm of righteous indignation in theBritish national mass media, nobody in Russia noticedthat, because the BBC / Telegraph's fiction wasprimarily intended to cheatdomestic public. And today most of the Russians have noidea about the story, I personally am not typical in thissense because I'm reading English-speaking media closely.Recently the British myth was developed further: TheTelegraph is lying now that Putin personally said it, nothis spokesman <http://archive.is/UUsDn>.Most of the 'imperialist' British boobs who respond tothis story usually staunchly avoid to discuss the veryfact of fiction, but instead are trying to argue thatthey are great but not a small island :)===========Oleg, I am sorry if it offends you, but DVH is correct inall he said.

What DVH said is a sort of psychological defence, andyou can't expect I take your claims since I can observethe situation on the whole from many various sources.============I can't argue with that, but I am fairly well politicallyabout him/her,

Peskov's name doesn't matter much, when the fake news wasunfolding most of the British outlets said just 'Putin'sspokesman' or 'top official spokesman' and like that.

Poor Oleg. You really don't get it.Most Brits have never heard of Peskov.They have no idea what was said or what wasn't said.Russia doesn't feature heavily in their thoughts.One might even say that most Brits don't care aboutRussia. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

Such a reaction is symptomatic to illustrate how thewounded British nationalist-imperialist pride works. It'svery primitive. Real situation is rather the opposite,when there was a storm of righteous indignation in theBritish national mass media, nobody in Russia noticedthat, because the BBC / Telegraph's fiction wasprimarily intended to cheatdomestic public. And today most of the Russians have noidea about the story, I personally am not typical in thissense because I'm reading English-speaking media closely.Recently the British myth was developed further: TheTelegraph is lying now that Putin personally said it, nothis spokesman <http://archive.is/UUsDn>.Most of the 'imperialist' British boobs who respond tothis story usually staunchly avoid to discuss the veryfact of fiction, but instead are trying to argue thatthey are great but not a small island :)===========Oleg, I am sorry if it offends you, but DVH is correct inall he said.

What DVH said is a sort of psychological defence, andyou can't expect I take your claims since I can observethe situation on the whole from many various sources.============I can't argue with that, but I am fairly well politicallyabout him/her,

Peskov's name doesn't matter much, when the fake news wasunfolding most of the British outlets said just 'Putin'sspokesman' or 'top official spokesman' and like that.

===============

I can only thank you for drawing our attention to it but as you can see,nobody cares!

Just because things are said, doesn't make them right.

Anyway have you read the post by RH156RH? I think that puts it intoperspective.

Poor Oleg. You really don't get it.Most Brits have never heard of Peskov.They have no idea what was said or what wasn't said.Russia doesn't feature heavily in their thoughts.One might even say that most Brits don't care aboutRussia. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

Such a reaction is symptomatic to illustrate how thewounded British nationalist-imperialist pride works.It's very primitive. Real situation is rather theopposite, when there was a storm of righteousindignation in the British national mass media, nobodyin Russia noticed that, because the BBC / Telegraph'sfiction was primarily intended to cheatdomestic public. And today most of the Russians have noidea about the story, I personally am not typical inthis sense because I'm reading English-speaking mediaclosely. Recently the British myth was developedfurther: The Telegraph is lying now that Putinpersonally said it, not his spokesman<http://archive.is/UUsDn>.Most of the 'imperialist' British boobs who respond tothis story usually staunchly avoid to discuss the veryfact of fiction, but instead are trying to argue thatthey are great but not a small island :)===========Oleg, I am sorry if it offends you, but DVH is correctin all he said.

What DVH said is a sort of psychological defence, andyou can't expect I take your claims since I can observethe situation on the whole from many various sources.============I can't argue with that, but I am fairly well politicallyabout him/her,

Peskov's name doesn't matter much, when the fake news wasunfolding most of the British outlets said just 'Putin'sspokesman' or 'top official spokesman' and like that.===============I can only thank you for drawing our attention to it butas you can see, nobody cares!Just because things are said, doesn't make them right.

RH156RH is about whether the idea about the UK's smallness isright or wrong. It's irrelevant to the primary point. This isrelevant to my second point though: most of the British justcan't discuss the fact of the fraud in their MSM as such, butinstead they want to discuss the UK's smallness / greatness.

I.e. the ardent intention to defend 'national pride' blocksrealization of the fact that all these 'things' were originatedas the UK's own media fiction.

Poor Oleg. You really don't get it.Most Brits have never heard of Peskov.They have no idea what was said or what wasn't said.Russia doesn't feature heavily in their thoughts.One might even say that most Brits don't care aboutRussia. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

Such a reaction is symptomatic to illustrate how thewounded British nationalist-imperialist pride works.It's very primitive. Real situation is rather theopposite, when there was a storm of righteousindignation in the British national mass media, nobodyin Russia noticed that, because the BBC / Telegraph'sfiction was primarily intended to cheatdomestic public. And today most of the Russians have noidea about the story, I personally am not typical inthis sense because I'm reading English-speaking mediaclosely. Recently the British myth was developedfurther: The Telegraph is lying now that Putinpersonally said it, not his spokesman<http://archive.is/UUsDn>.Most of the 'imperialist' British boobs who respond tothis story usually staunchly avoid to discuss the veryfact of fiction, but instead are trying to argue thatthey are great but not a small island :)===========Oleg, I am sorry if it offends you, but DVH is correctin all he said.

What DVH said is a sort of psychological defence, andyou can't expect I take your claims since I can observethe situation on the whole from many various sources.============I can't argue with that, but I am fairly well politicallyabout him/her,

Peskov's name doesn't matter much, when the fake news wasunfolding most of the British outlets said just 'Putin'sspokesman' or 'top official spokesman' and like that.===============I can only thank you for drawing our attention to it butas you can see, nobody cares!Just because things are said, doesn't make them right.

My questions came first. They were about why children should not be told of for whining.

that was not a question...it was an assertion drawn fromyour mind-reading beliefs....sorry, you've run out of free passes

Didn't I put a question mark at the end? Your views on grammar are as bizarre as your views on logic. Anyway little is more tedious and fatuous than your so called questions about killing Hitler and Stalin before they did what they did, and using them to justify the atrocious mess that US policy has made of the middle east. I now have no reason to consider them.

i also know you have no reason and less abilitylike to try another dodge?

Just another Jew with an agenda, as another poster has recently remarked. You refuse to engage in argument so what's the point in my trying? I've already told you what I think of your warmongering. Now you are trying to justify it with facile defences that are beneath consideration. Your little games have become very boring.

i also know you have no reason and less abilitylike to try another dodge?

Just another Jew with an agenda, as another poster has recently remarked. You refuse to engage in argument so what's the point in my trying? I've already told you what I think of your warmongering. Now you are trying to justify it with facile defences that are beneath consideration. Your little games have become very boring.

Poor Oleg. You really don't get it.Most Brits have never heard of Peskov.They have no idea what was said or what wasn't said.Russia doesn't feature heavily in their thoughts.One might even say that most Brits don't care aboutRussia. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

Such a reaction is symptomatic to illustrate how thewounded British nationalist-imperialist pride works.It's very primitive. Real situation is rather theopposite, when there was a storm of righteousindignation in the British national mass media, nobodyin Russia noticed that, because the BBC / Telegraph'sfiction was primarily intended to cheatdomestic public. And today most of the Russians have noidea about the story, I personally am not typical inthis sense because I'm reading English-speaking mediaclosely. Recently the British myth was developedfurther: The Telegraph is lying now that Putinpersonally said it, not his spokesman<http://archive.is/UUsDn>.Most of the 'imperialist' British boobs who respond tothis story usually staunchly avoid to discuss the veryfact of fiction, but instead are trying to argue thatthey are great but not a small island :)===========Oleg, I am sorry if it offends you, but DVH is correctin all he said.

What DVH said is a sort of psychological defence, andyou can't expect I take your claims since I can observethe situation on the whole from many various sources.============I can't argue with that, but I am fairly well politicallyabout him/her,

Peskov's name doesn't matter much, when the fake news wasunfolding most of the British outlets said just 'Putin'sspokesman' or 'top official spokesman' and like that.===============I can only thank you for drawing our attention to it butas you can see, nobody cares!Just because things are said, doesn't make them right.

RH156RH is about whether the idea about the UK's smallness isright or wrong. It's irrelevant to the primary point. This isrelevant to my second point though: most of the British justcan't discuss the fact of the fraud in their MSM as such, butinstead they want to discuss the UK's smallness / greatness.

I.e. the ardent intention to defend 'national pride' blocksrealization of the fact that all these 'things' were originatedas the UK's own media fiction.

Poor Oleg. You really don't get it.Most Brits have never heard of Peskov.They have no idea what was said or what wasn't said.Russia doesn't feature heavily in their thoughts.One might even say that most Brits don't care aboutRussia. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

Such a reaction is symptomatic to illustrate how thewounded British nationalist-imperialist pride works.It's very primitive. Real situation is rather theopposite, when there was a storm of righteousindignation in the British national mass media, nobodyin Russia noticed that, because the BBC / Telegraph'sfiction was primarily intended to cheatdomestic public. And today most of the Russians have noidea about the story, I personally am not typical inthis sense because I'm reading English-speaking mediaclosely. Recently the British myth was developedfurther: The Telegraph is lying now that Putinpersonally said it, not his spokesman<http://archive.is/UUsDn>.Most of the 'imperialist' British boobs who> respond tothis story usually staunchly avoid to discuss the veryfact of fiction, but instead are trying to argue thatthey are great but not a small island :)===========Oleg, I am sorry if it offends you, but DVH is correctin all he said.

What DVH said is a sort of psychological defence, andyou can't expect I take your claims since I can observethe situation on the whole from many various sources.============I can't argue with that, but I am fairly well politicallyabout him/her,

Peskov's name doesn't matter much, when the fake news wasunfolding most of the British outlets said just 'Putin'sspokesman' or 'top official spokesman' and like that.===============I can only thank you for drawing our attention to it butas you can see, nobody cares!Just because things are said, doesn't make them right.

RH156RH is about whether the idea about the UK's smallness is right or wrong.It's irrelevant to the primary point. This is relevant to my second pointthough: most of the British just can't discuss the fact of the fraud in theirMSM as such, but instead they want to discuss the UK's smallness / greatness.I.e. the ardent intention to defend 'national pride' blocks realization ofthe fact that all these 'things' were originated as the UK's own mediafiction.==========Why do you care so much?

I'm just interested to better understand the background, which preventsthe small islanders to honestly recognize the simple fact that they werebeing cheated by their mass media guides.

Poor Oleg. You really don't get it.Most Brits have never heard of Peskov.They have no idea what was said or what wasn't said.Russia doesn't feature heavily in their thoughts.One might even say that most Brits don't care aboutRussia. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

Such a reaction is symptomatic to illustrate how thewounded British nationalist-imperialist pride works.It's very primitive. Real situation is rather theopposite, when there was a storm of righteousindignation in the British national mass media, nobodyin Russia noticed that, because the BBC / Telegraph'sfiction was primarily intended to cheatdomestic public. And today most of the Russians have noidea about the story, I personally am not typical inthis sense because I'm reading English-speaking mediaclosely. Recently the British myth was developedfurther: The Telegraph is lying now that Putinpersonally said it, not his spokesman<http://archive.is/UUsDn>.Most of the 'imperialist' British boobs who> respond tothis story usually staunchly avoid to discuss the veryfact of fiction, but instead are trying to argue thatthey are great but not a small island :)===========Oleg, I am sorry if it offends you, but DVH is correctin all he said.

What DVH said is a sort of psychological defence, andyou can't expect I take your claims since I can observethe situation on the whole from many various sources.============I can't argue with that, but I am fairly well politicallyabout him/her,

Peskov's name doesn't matter much, when the fake news wasunfolding most of the British outlets said just 'Putin'sspokesman' or 'top official spokesman' and like that.===============I can only thank you for drawing our attention to it butas you can see, nobody cares!Just because things are said, doesn't make them right.

RH156RH is about whether the idea about the UK's smallness is right or wrong.It's irrelevant to the primary point. This is relevant to my second pointthough: most of the British just can't discuss the fact of the fraud in theirMSM as such, but instead they want to discuss the UK's smallness / greatness.I.e. the ardent intention to defend 'national pride' blocks realization ofthe fact that all these 'things' were originated as the UK's own mediafiction.==========Why do you care so much?

I'm just interested to better understand the background, which preventsthe small islanders to honestly recognize the simple fact that they werebeing cheated by their mass media guides.

Poor Oleg. You really don't get it.Most Brits have never heard of Peskov.They have no idea what was said or what wasn't said.Russia doesn't feature heavily in their thoughts.One might even say that most Brits don't care aboutRussia. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

Such a reaction is symptomatic to illustrate how thewounded British nationalist-imperialist pride works.It's very primitive. Real situation is rather theopposite, when there was a storm of righteousindignation in the British national mass media, nobodyin Russia noticed that, because the BBC / Telegraph'sfiction was primarily intended to cheatdomestic public. And today most of the Russians haveno idea about the story, I personally am not typicalin this sense because I'm reading English-speakingmedia closely. Recently the British myth was developedfurther: The Telegraph is lying now that Putinpersonally said it, not his spokesman<http://archive.is/UUsDn>.Most of the 'imperialist' British boobs who> respondto this story usually staunchly avoid to discuss thevery fact of fiction, but instead are trying to arguethat they are great but not a small island :)===========Oleg, I am sorry if it offends you, but DVH is correctin all he said.

What DVH said is a sort of psychological defence, andyou can't expect I take your claims since I can observethe situation on the whole from many various sources.============I can't argue with that, but I am fairly wellpolitically aware and I have never heard of Peskovuntil you wrote about him/her,

Peskov's name doesn't matter much, when the fake newswas unfolding most of the British outlets said just'Putin's spokesman' or 'top official spokesman' andlike that.===============I can only thank you for drawing our attention to it butas you can see, nobody cares!Just because things are said, doesn't make them right.

RH156RH is about whether the idea about the UK'ssmallness is right or wrong.It's irrelevant to the primary point. This is relevantto my second point though: most of the British justcan't discuss the fact of the fraud in theirMSM as such, but instead they want to discuss the UK'ssmallness / greatness.I.e. the ardent intention to defend 'national pride'blocks realization of the fact that all these 'things'were originated as the UK's own media fiction.==========Why do you care so much?

I'm just interested to better understand the background,which prevents the small islanders to honestly recognizethe simple fact that they were being cheated by theirmass media guides.You likely understand it, but you can not admit ithonestly.Such an extreme morbid conceit is a notable phenomenon.===========LOL well enjoy your philosophy:)))I wonder if this is a trait among Russians ...

Poor Oleg. You really don't get it.Most Brits have never heard of Peskov.They have no idea what was said or what wasn't said.Russia doesn't feature heavily in their thoughts.One might even say that most Brits don't care aboutRussia. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

Such a reaction is symptomatic to illustrate how thewounded British nationalist-imperialist pride works.It's very primitive. Real situation is rather theopposite, when there was a storm of righteousindignation in the British national mass media, nobodyin Russia noticed that, because the BBC / Telegraph'sfiction was primarily intended to cheatdomestic public. And today most of the Russians haveno idea about the story, I personally am not typicalin this sense because I'm reading English-speakingmedia closely. Recently the British myth was developedfurther: The Telegraph is lying now that Putinpersonally said it, not his spokesman<http://archive.is/UUsDn>.Most of the 'imperialist' British boobs who> respondto this story usually staunchly avoid to discuss thevery fact of fiction, but instead are trying to arguethat they are great but not a small island :)===========Oleg, I am sorry if it offends you, but DVH is correctin all he said.

What DVH said is a sort of psychological defence, andyou can't expect I take your claims since I can observethe situation on the whole from many various sources.============I can't argue with that, but I am fairly wellpolitically aware and I have never heard of Peskovuntil you wrote about him/her,

Peskov's name doesn't matter much, when the fake newswas unfolding most of the British outlets said just'Putin's spokesman' or 'top official spokesman' andlike that.===============I can only thank you for drawing our attention to it butas you can see, nobody cares!Just because things are said, doesn't make them right.

RH156RH is about whether the idea about the UK'ssmallness is right or wrong.It's irrelevant to the primary point. This is relevantto my second point though: most of the British justcan't discuss the fact of the fraud in theirMSM as such, but instead they want to discuss the UK'ssmallness / greatness.I.e. the ardent intention to defend 'national pride'blocks realization of the fact that all these 'things'were originated as the UK's own media fiction.==========Why do you care so much?

I'm just interested to better understand the background,which prevents the small islanders to honestly recognizethe simple fact that they were being cheated by theirmass media guides.You likely understand it, but you can not admit ithonestly.Such an extreme morbid conceit is a notable phenomenon.===========LOL well enjoy your philosophy:)))I wonder if this is a trait among Russians ...

No. I've lo0ng thought of you as Oleg's opposite number.I've said it before several times. It's my settled view.

You seem to want to raise your self-esteem with fantazies

Cod psychology. No problem with my self esteem thankyou.I never thought of my chats with you as anything toboast about.

Post by Oleg Smirnovthat you can talk with a KGB disinformation agent thathad a special heavy training and so on.

Perhaps my poor English again. What I meant is, a talk with an 'agent' is foryou a more romantic and prestigious thing than a talk with just an ordinaryguy, I didn't mean you have a low self-esteem as such. If you were anoppositionist in Russia then you might believe that Putin watches you and makesdecisions about you personally ;)

I think you may be too young to have belonged to the KGB.I did ask you if you would have liked to have joined themback in the old days though.

"Oleg Smirnov" wrote in messagesaracene,Your attempts at psychology are rather amusing. I knowyou think you sound clever, but believe me, you don't.In fact your desperate attempts to be seen as superiorare hilarious:).There is nothing wrong with our self esteem and I amstarting to wonder if your little games are an attempt tobolster yours:))

"Oleg Smirnov" wrote in messagesaracene,Your attempts at psychology are rather amusing. I knowyou think you sound clever, but believe me, you don't.In fact your desperate attempts to be seen as superiorare hilarious:).There is nothing wrong with our self esteem and I amstarting to wonder if your little games are an attempt tobolster yours:))

Post by Oleg SmirnovRH156RH is about whether the idea about the UK's smallness is right orwrong. It's irrelevant to the primary point. This isrelevant to my second point though: most of the British just can'tdiscuss the fact of the fraud in their MSM as such, butinstead they want to discuss the UK's smallness / greatness.I.e. the ardent intention to defend 'national pride' blocks realizationof the fact that all these 'things' were originatedas the UK's own media fiction.==========Why do you care so much?

I suspect divide and conquer.

Britain is deploying forces to defend the Baltic States. This isrequiring Britain to rearm with weapons able to fight Russian forces.They are expensive high tech stuff we have not needed since the end ofCold War 1. Raising the man power and money for a long term overseasdeployment against a nuclear armed opponent needs continuing permissionfrom the British people.

The British Government and politicians obtain this permission bycommunicating the danger to the British public via the Main Stream Media(MSM). By saying Britain is a small island (i.e. weak) and discreditingthe MSM the Russians may damage this strategic communications linkcausing the deployment to be cancelled. Winning in Britain and theBaltic by subversion - Sun Tzu would be proud.

Post by Andrew SwallowI suspect divide and conquer.Britain is deploying forces to defend the Baltic States.This is requiring Britain to rearm with weapons able tofight Russian forces. They are expensive high tech stuffwe have not needed since the end of Cold War 1. Raisingthe man power and money for a long term overseasdeployment against a nuclear armed opponent needscontinuing permission from the British people.The British Government and politicians obtain thispermission by communicating the danger to the Britishpublic via the Main Stream Media (MSM). By saying Britainis a small island (i.e. weak) and discrediting the MSMthe Russians may damage this strategic communications

'The Russians' did not say that Britain is a small island etc. It was aBritish own fiction as I explained in the beginning of this thread. Andnow I see that the British just have a need to believe 'the Russians saidthat', such is an irrational demand among many of the British - to inventby themselves some fictional insults from Russia.

It clearly means that the British need an artificial image of insulterand are willing to design such an image in their mind on the base of anyappropriate myths and fictions.

Such a self-delusion is an unhealthy thing, it will not make you happy.Also such things are more typical for 'primitive tribes'. It's amusing todiscover that it similarly works among the British.

Post by Andrew SwallowI suspect divide and conquer.Britain is deploying forces to defend the Baltic States.This is requiring Britain to rearm with weapons able tofight Russian forces. They are expensive high tech stuffwe have not needed since the end of Cold War 1. Raisingthe man power and money for a long term overseasdeployment against a nuclear armed opponent needscontinuing permission from the British people.The British Government and politicians obtain thispermission by communicating the danger to the Britishpublic via the Main Stream Media (MSM). By saying Britainis a small island (i.e. weak) and discrediting the MSMthe Russians may damage this strategic communications

'The Russians' did not say that Britain is a small island etc. It was aBritish own fiction as I explained in the beginning of this thread. Andnow I see that the British just have a need to believe 'the Russianssaid that', such is an irrational demand among many of the British - toinventby themselves some fictional insults from Russia.It clearly means that the British need an artificial image of insulterand are willing to design such an image in their mind on the base of anyappropriate myths and fictions.Such a self-delusion is an unhealthy thing, it will not make you happy.Also such things are more typical for 'primitive tribes'. It's amusingto discover that it similarly works among the British.

Here's the sequence of events, if I've followed correctly:

Russian man doesn't say something insulting.

British newspaper says Russian actually said something insulting.

British reader of newspaper reads and forgets.

Different Russian man appears many moons later on usenet and saysBritish are very insulted and agitated by something that was never said.Says it must be because the British mourn for their empire.

Post by Andrew SwallowI suspect divide and conquer.Britain is deploying forces to defend the Baltic States.This is requiring Britain to rearm with weapons able tofight Russian forces. They are expensive high tech stuffwe have not needed since the end of Cold War 1. Raisingthe man power and money for a long term overseasdeployment against a nuclear armed opponent needscontinuing permission from the British people.The British Government and politicians obtain thispermission by communicating the danger to the Britishpublic via the Main Stream Media (MSM). By sayingBritain is a small island (i.e. weak) and discreditingthe MSM the Russians may damage this strategiccommunications

'The Russians' did not say that Britain is a smallisland etc. It was a British own fiction as I explainedin the beginning of this thread. And now I see that theBritish just have a need to believe 'the Russians saidthat', such is an irrational demand among many of theBritish - to invent by themselves some fictional insultsfrom Russia.It clearly means that the British need an artificialimage of insulter and are willing to design such animage in their mind on the base of any appropriate mythsand fictions.Such a self-delusion is an unhealthy thing, it will notmake you happy. Also such things are more typical for'primitive tribes'. It's amusing to discover that itsimilarly works among the British.

Russian man doesn't say something insulting.British newspaper says Russian actually said somethinginsulting.British reader of newspaper reads and forgets.Different Russian man appears many moons later on usenetand says British are very insulted and agitated bysomething that was never said. Says it must be becausethe British mourn for their empire.I wonder what will happen next in this exciting saga.

They didn't forget, it was deposited in the mind, and 'British newspaper' alsoreminds about that <http://archive.is/UUsDn>. Rationally, this situation meansthat the British (not all of them but at least those who make the policy) seekfor hostility towards Russia, themselves. To do it in a smart(ass) way they usea fraud to misrepresent it as a response to an alleged hostility from Russia.

Post by Andrew SwallowI suspect divide and conquer.Britain is deploying forces to defend the Baltic States.This is requiring Britain to rearm with weapons able tofight Russian forces. They are expensive high tech stuffwe have not needed since the end of Cold War 1. Raisingthe man power and money for a long term overseasdeployment against a nuclear armed opponent needscontinuing permission from the British people.The British Government and politicians obtain thispermission by communicating the danger to the Britishpublic via the Main Stream Media (MSM). By sayingBritain is a small island (i.e. weak) and discreditingthe MSM the Russians may damage this strategiccommunications

'The Russians' did not say that Britain is a smallisland etc. It was a British own fiction as I explainedin the beginning of this thread. And now I see that theBritish just have a need to believe 'the Russians saidthat', such is an irrational demand among many of theBritish - to invent by themselves some fictional insultsfrom Russia.It clearly means that the British need an artificialimage of insulter and are willing to design such animage in their mind on the base of any appropriate mythsand fictions.Such a self-delusion is an unhealthy thing, it will notmake you happy. Also such things are more typical for'primitive tribes'. It's amusing to discover that itsimilarly works among the British.

Russian man doesn't say something insulting.British newspaper says Russian actually said somethinginsulting.British reader of newspaper reads and forgets.Different Russian man appears many moons later on usenetand says British are very insulted and agitated bysomething that was never said. Says it must be becausethe British mourn for their empire.I wonder what will happen next in this exciting saga.

They didn't forget, it was deposited in the mind, and 'Britishnewspaper' alsoreminds about that <http://archive.is/UUsDn>. Rationally, this situation meansthat the British (not all of them but at least those who make the policy) seekfor hostility towards Russia, themselves. To do it in a smart(ass) way they usea fraud to misrepresent it as a response to an alleged hostility from Russia.It's not nice, not good.

Is it less nice than invading Georgia and annexing part of Ukraine, ormore nice?

Post by Andrew SwallowI suspect divide and conquer.Britain is deploying forces to defend the BalticStates. This is requiring Britain to rearm withweapons able to fight Russian forces. They areexpensive high tech stuff we have not needed sincethe end of Cold War 1. Raising the man power andmoney for a long term overseas deployment against anuclear armed opponent needs continuing permissionfrom the British people. The British Government and politicians obtainthispermission by communicating the danger to the Britishpublic via the Main Stream Media (MSM). By sayingBritain is a small island (i.e. weak) and discreditingthe MSM the Russians may damage this strategiccommunications

'The Russians' did not say that Britain is a smallisland etc. It was a British own fiction as I explainedin the beginning of this thread. And now I see that theBritish just have a need to believe 'the Russians saidthat', such is an irrational demand among many of theBritish - to invent by themselves some fictionalinsults from Russia.It clearly means that the British need an artificialimage of insulter and are willing to design such animage in their mind on the base of any appropriatemyths and fictions.Such a self-delusion is an unhealthy thing, it will notmake you happy. Also such things are more typical for'primitive tribes'. It's amusing to discover that itsimilarly works among the British.

Here's the sequence of events, if I've followedcorrectly: Russian man doesn't say something insulting.British newspaper says Russian actually said somethinginsulting.British reader of newspaper reads and forgets.Different Russian man appears many moons later on usenetand says British are very insulted and agitated bysomething that was never said. Says it must be becausethe British mourn for their empire.I wonder what will happen next in this exciting saga.

They didn't forget, it was deposited in the mind, and 'British newspaper'also reminds about that <http://archive.is/UUsDn>. Rationally, thissituation means that the British (not all of them but at least those whomake the policy) seek for hostility towards Russia, themselves. To do it ina smart(ass) way they use a fraud to misrepresent it as a response to analleged hostility from Russia.It's not nice, not good.

Is it less nice than invading Georgia and annexing partof Ukraine, or more nice?

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism>

The fantasy of 'invading Georgia and annexing part of Ukraine' isalso a part of your mythology, in addition to the fictional 'smallisland' statement, so all this is not nice, of course.

Post by Andrew SwallowI suspect divide and conquer.Britain is deploying forces to defend the BalticStates. This is requiring Britain to rearm withweapons able to fight Russian forces. They areexpensive high tech stuff we have not needed sincethe end of Cold War 1. Raising the man power andmoney for a long term overseas deployment against anuclear armed opponent needs continuing permissionfrom the British people. The British Government and politicians obtainthispermission by communicating the danger to the Britishpublic via the Main Stream Media (MSM). By sayingBritain is a small island (i.e. weak) and discreditingthe MSM the Russians may damage this strategiccommunications

'The Russians' did not say that Britain is a smallisland etc. It was a British own fiction as I explainedin the beginning of this thread. And now I see that theBritish just have a need to believe 'the Russians saidthat', such is an irrational demand among many of theBritish - to invent by themselves some fictionalinsults from Russia.It clearly means that the British need an artificialimage of insulter and are willing to design such animage in their mind on the base of any appropriatemyths and fictions.Such a self-delusion is an unhealthy thing, it will notmake you happy. Also such things are more typical for'primitive tribes'. It's amusing to discover that itsimilarly works among the British.

Here's the sequence of events, if I've followedcorrectly: Russian man doesn't say something insulting.British newspaper says Russian actually said somethinginsulting.British reader of newspaper reads and forgets.Different Russian man appears many moons later on usenetand says British are very insulted and agitated bysomething that was never said. Says it must be becausethe British mourn for their empire.I wonder what will happen next in this exciting saga.

They didn't forget, it was deposited in the mind, and 'British newspaper'also reminds about that <http://archive.is/UUsDn>. Rationally, thissituation means that the British (not all of them but at least those whomake the policy) seek for hostility towards Russia, themselves. To do it ina smart(ass) way they use a fraud to misrepresent it as a response to analleged hostility from Russia.It's not nice, not good.

Is it less nice than invading Georgia and annexing partof Ukraine, or more nice?

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism>The fantasy of 'invading Georgia and annexing part of Ukraine'

Post by Oleg SmirnovThey didn't forget, it was deposited in the mind, and 'British newspaper'also reminds about that <http://archive.is/UUsDn>. Rationally, thissituation means that the British (not all of them but at least those whomake the policy) seek for hostility towards Russia, themselves. To do itin a smart(ass) way they use a fraud to misrepresent it as a response toan alleged hostility from Russia.It's not nice, not good.

Is it less nice than invading Georgia and annexing partof Ukraine, or more nice?

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism>The fantasy of 'invading Georgia and annexing part ofUkraine'

Right. Putinland didn't invade Georgia and didn't annexepart of Ukraine.All that was just a fantasy dreamt up by the wickedwestern media.

Post by Oleg Smirnovisalso a part of your mythology, in addition to thefictional 'small island' statement, so all this is notnice, of course.

Don't feel sorry for yourself, it's undignified.

I rather feel sorry for your mix of delusion and self-assumption. Anyway,whatever you believe about Georgia and the Ukraine, it's still irrelevantto the 'small island' fraud. What's in common in these cases is, the factthat the mainstream media in the UK use fiction or misrepresentation toshape mind and sentiment of their domestic audience in a proper way.

Post by Oleg SmirnovThey didn't forget, it was deposited in the mind, and 'British newspaper'also reminds about that <http://archive.is/UUsDn>. Rationally, thissituation means that the British (not all of them but at least those whomake the policy) seek for hostility towards Russia, themselves. To do itin a smart(ass) way they use a fraud to misrepresent it as a response toan alleged hostility from Russia.It's not nice, not good.

Is it less nice than invading Georgia and annexing partof Ukraine, or more nice?

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism>The fantasy of 'invading Georgia and annexing part ofUkraine'

Right. Putinland didn't invade Georgia and didn't annexepart of Ukraine.All that was just a fantasy dreamt up by the wickedwestern media.

Post by Oleg Smirnovisalso a part of your mythology, in addition to thefictional 'small island' statement, so all this is notnice, of course.

Don't feel sorry for yourself, it's undignified.

I rather feel sorry for your mix of delusion and self-assumption. Anyway,whatever you believe about Georgia and the Ukraine, it's still irrelevantto the 'small island' fraud. What's in common in these cases is, the factthat the mainstream media in the UK use fiction or misrepresentation toshape mind and sentiment of their domestic audience in a proper way.

Chick it Smirov, please. Or find a better, or at least another, example.

Post by Oleg SmirnovThey didn't forget, it was deposited in the mind,and 'British newspaper' also reminds about that<http://archive.is/UUsDn>. Rationally, thissituation means that the British (not all of thembut at least those who make the policy) seek forhostility towards Russia, themselves. To do it in asmart(ass) way they use a fraud to misrepresent itas a response to an alleged hostility from Russia.It's not nice, not good.

Is it less nice than invading Georgia and annexingpart of Ukraine, or more nice?

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism>The fantasy of 'invading Georgia and annexing part ofUkraine'

Right. Putinland didn't invade Georgia and didn't annexepart of Ukraine.All that was just a fantasy dreamt up by the wickedwestern media.

Post by Oleg Smirnovisalso a part of your mythology, in addition to thefictional 'small island' statement, so all this is notnice, of course.

Don't feel sorry for yourself, it's undignified.

I rather feel sorry for your mix of delusion andself-assumption. Anyway, whatever you believe aboutGeorgia and the Ukraine, it's still irrelevant to the'small island' fraud. What's in common in these casesis, the fact that the mainstream media in the UK usefiction or misrepresentation to shape mind and sentimentof their domestic audience in a proper way.

Chick it Smirov, please. Or find a better, or at leastanother, example.

I can't force anyone to support this thread.

Some time back I posted here '... promoted lies' threads and gavelinks to other critics and examples, but this particular examplelooks like a specific gem because of a few specific reasons.

1. it was a pure deliberate fiction (not a misrepresentation) madeunprovokedly, and in a pretty blunt and brazen manner2. the reputable mainstream outlets (BBC, Telegraph), media persons(Robinson) were involved3. it was likely made by a specific request from the very UK's topin order to create a false pretext for Mr Cameron's speech(where he said there's no other contry with 'bigger heart' etc)

Post by Oleg Smirnovthat the mainstream media in the UK use fiction or misrepresentation toshape mind and sentiment of their domestic audience in a proper way.

Also in that "Russia and the West: Putin Takes Control" program on theNational Geographic Channel, the poisonings of Alexander Litvinenko andVictor Yushchenko were mentioned, and that "poisoning in Russia goes backcenturies." Undoubtedly not all that info is "fiction ormisrepresentation"...-----------------------------------------------------------------------------A Short History of Russian Poisoning

On May 23, 1938, a Soviet intelligence agent named Pavel Sudoplatovassassinated the Ukrainian nationalist leader Yevhen Konovalets inRotterdam. The order for the murder had come personally from Josef Stalin.The method was none too subtle: Sudoplatov had given his victim a box ofchocolates, containing a bomb.

Subtler forms of liquidation had been in the works for some time in SovietRussia. In 1921—the year Sudoplatov was recruited at age 14 into the Cheka,the Soviet security organization formed by Vladimir Lenin—the Sovietsestablished their first laboratory for the study and testing of poisons.They made rapid progress. From 1928–35 secret laboratories were overseen bythe accomplished Soviet biochemist Grigory Mairanovsky. The author of a 1940classified doctoral thesis on the interaction of mustard gas with humanskin, Mairanovsky was tasked to develop tasteless, colorless, odorless, andlethal poisons that could be placed in the food and drink of enemies of thestate. Mairanovsky and his colleagues tested their concoctions on politicalprisoners of various sizes and ages. He was so successful that by the 1940she had become a key member of Pavel Sudoplatov’s team for politicalassassinations. In summer 1947, again on the order of Stalin, Mairanovskykilled the American spy for the Soviets Isaiah Oggins by injecting him inone of his laboratories with a lethal dose of the poison curare.

Poisoning has a long history. Socrates was forced to take hemlock as hisdeath sentence. For a period of time in ancient Persia, different poisonswere the weapons of choice for rivals bent on doing away with this or thatPersian king. British science writer John Emsley provides a helpful historyof poison in his riveting book The Elements of Murder. In 19th-centuryFrance, arsenic came to be known as poudre de succession—”inheritancepowder,” a method by which wily women would rid themselves of cumbersomehusbands. Thallium, according to Emsley, was Saddam Hussein’s poison ofchoice for political opponents.

Russians have always seemed to have a special fondness for poisoning. In1453, Dmitry Shemyaka, the Grand Duke of Moscow, was poisoned with arsenicin a chicken dinner, his cook having been bribed by Muscovite agents of arival. In 1610, Russian general Mikhail Skopin-Shuisky was poisoned onorders of the Tsar; in this instance, his wife enlisted to poison his food.In 1936, Abkhaz Communist leader Nestor Lakoba was poisoned by orders ofLavrentiy Beria, head of the NKVD, the Soviet security organizationresponsible for extrajudicial killings and the gulag system. Lakoba waspoisoned during a dinner in Tbilisi with Beria, his death announced as aheart attack.

During the Cold War, the tradition continued. Most spectacular and famous isthe case of Georgi Markov, an anti-communist Bulgarian writer who in exilehad worked for Radio Free Europe and the BBC. On the morning of September 7,1978—the birthday of Bulgarian dictator Todor Zhivkov—Markov made his wayacross Waterloo Bridge in London to wait for a bus. An assassin, working forthe Bulgarian secret police and aided by the KGB, poked Markov with the tipof his umbrella. By evening, Markov was checked into a hospital, feelingunwell with a high fever. Four days later he was dead. Forensic pathologistsdiscovered a pellet filled with traces of ricin in the back thigh of Markov’sright leg. According to former Russian intelligence officer Boris Volodarskyin his book, The KGB’s Poison Factory, Markov had likely been surveilledbefore the assassination by another Bulgarian BBC broadcaster named VladimirSimeonov. Twenty days after Markov’s murder—and two days after beingquestioned by Scotland Yard—the 30-year-old Simeonov was himself found deadunder mysterious circumstances. In the kitchen of his flat, reportsVolodarsky, “two glasses were found in the sink without any fingerprints.Traces of a bottle were identified on the table.”

A decade earlier, Alexander Dubcek, the reform communist leader of theill-fated Prague Spring, was thought in Czech anti-Communist circles to havebeen poisoned by the KGB, in this instance by radioactive isotopes sneakedinto his soup during a brief captivity in Moscow. Dubcek fell ill later inBratislava, had to cancel a speech, and was hospitalized due to “a cold.” Herecovered.

As in the case of Pavel Sudoplatov’s detonating chocolates in Rotterdam,surreptitious poisoning gets trumped at times in Russian politicalassassinations by a somewhat heavier hand. In 1940, at his compound outsideMexico City, Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky was fatally wounded by anice-axe-wielding assassin (whose murder was ordered by Stalin and carriedout under the direction of Sudoplatov). And there was no poison involved inthe murder this winter of Kremlin critic and former Deputy Prime MinisterBoris Nemtsov. Shortly before midnight on February 27, walking after dinnerwith his Ukrainian girlfriend, Anna Durytska, across the BolshoyMoskvoretsky Bridge close to Red Square, Nemtsov had four shots pumped intohis back at close range from an assassin’s handgun.

Which brings us to the case at hand. At this writing, Nemtsov’s associate,journalist and civil society activist Vladimir Kara-Murza, lies ill in aMoscow hospital, according to reports stricken by kidney failure, doublepneumonia, and pancreatitis. The 33-year-old Kara-Murza fell suddenly illand collapsed in his Moscow office on May 26. The day before, theorganization for which Kara-Murza currently works (Open Russia, which wascreated in September 2014 by former political prisoner and Russianbusinessman Mikhail Khodorkovsky) had released a documentary about RamzanKadyrov, the ruthless ruler of Chechnya and a close ally of RussianPresident Vladimir Putin.

No one can say for sure at this point whether Kara-Murza has been poisoned.What we do know is that Russia has a ghastly tradition of poisoningpolitical dissidents. We also know that very recent history has beenalarming. Although he survived—his face disfigured—pro-Western UkrainianPresidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko was poisoned with dioxin at adinner in Kiev during an election campaign in September 2004. Former FSB manand Putin opponent Alexander Litvinenko died of polonium ingested in aLondon hotel bar in 2006. Russian businessman Alexander Perepilichny, a keywitness in a Moscow money laundering case, expired outside his Surrey homein London in 2012, apparently having been killed by poison from the highlytoxic Gelsemium plant (grown remote areas of China). Then there’s the caseof journalist and Putin critic Anna Politkovskaya. She was shot to death byassassins in the elevator to her apartment on October 7, 2006. But inSeptember 2004, Politkovskaya had become violently ill and lostconsciousness after drinking tea on a Russian flight.

And we can be certain of one thing: Kara-Murza was a Kremlin target.

Let’s hope he’s transported out of Russia to a hospital in the West verysoon. If it turns out Kara-Murza wasn’t poisoned, leaving him in Moscow isto tempt fate.

"Oleg Smirnov" wrote in messageAnd we can be certain of one thing: Kara-Murza was aKremlin target.Let's hope he's transported out of Russia to a hospitalin the West very soon. If it turns out Kara-Murza wasn'tpoisoned, leaving him in Moscow is to tempt fate.http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/06/04/a-short-history-of-russian-poisoning/

It's such a cesspool ("the american interest").

Read here <http://archive.is/mdYeU>, <http://archive.is/QiUii> thefull story in sequential development compiled by myself at the time,it was easy to foreknew they would start to create the myth aftersome time. That's a sort of people who are without much decency, theycan lie very much easily if they feel an impunity. Read it carefullyand notice how their claims were changing from the very beginning andwith the further development.

Here <http://archive.is/8A4bs> an insider of RFE/RL, where Kara-Murzais a staffer, describes their team spirit (the blogger's husband oncewas the boss in RFE/RL, then he was kicked due to internal squabbles).

".. the liberty fighters around the clock write obscene denunciationsagainst each other, encourage personal scandals, constantly weavingintrigues against each other, trying their best to please the spiesplaced by the American authority everywhere, like red flags. Who wasthe first to denounce any infamy about his neighbor, - that takes theprize. .. But the most disgusting is the all-pervasive atmosphere oftotal lies and squealing which they built a cult of. They're lying toeach other, communicate only by letters; every word must be recorded,and then they easily give up their words spoken in private .."

This is what the US Congress funds (your tax money btw). You see howmuch stressful their job is. Not surprisingly it entices to consumptionof drugs in large quantities.

Poor Oleg. You really don't get it.Most Brits have never heard of Peskov.They have no idea what was said or what wasn't said.Russia doesn't feature heavily in their thoughts.One might even say that most Brits don't care about Russia.Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

Such a reaction is symptomatic to illustrate how the wounded Britishnationalist-imperialist pride works. It's very primitive. Real situation israther the opposite, when there was a storm of righteous indignation in theBritish national mass media, nobody in Russia noticed that, because the BBC /Telegraph's fiction was primarily intended to cheat domestic public. Andtoday most of the Russians have no idea about the story, I personally amnot typical in this sense because I'm reading English-speaking media closely.Recently the British myth was developed further: The Telegraph is lying nowthat Putin personally said it, not his spokesman <http://archive.is/UUsDn>.Most of the 'imperialist' British boobs who respond to this story usuallystaunchly avoid to discuss the very fact of fiction, but instead are tryingto argue that they are great but not a small island :)===========Oleg, I am sorry if it offends you, but DVH is correct in all he said.

Actually, Ophelia, - A lot of what Oleg says is right. When Britanniadid indeed rule the waves, we were "Great". Times change, and we are nolonger. Some things do not change in the real world however, physicalgeography being among them. Britain is not a geographically smallisland. In fact it is the fifth largest island on the planet (by area).It is approximately the same size as Japan, but has approximately halfthe population, so it is not particularly overcrowded.These facts are somewhat malleable when used by the "Establishment" -when raising tax, we are indeed "Great" and must remain so, whenthreatened, we are a "small island", when the home counties come underpopulation pressure we are "overcrowded", when celebrating, we are "agreen and pleasant land", when commiserating, we are "dark satanic".Trying not to ramble, in summary - beware the Establishment and theirMSM mouthpieces. Always look behind the headline story and ask "whobenefits" before taking their message at face value.

Poor Oleg. You really don't get it.Most Brits have never heard of Peskov.They have no idea what was said or what wasn't said.Russia doesn't feature heavily in their thoughts.One might even say that most Brits don't care about Russia.Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

Such a reaction is symptomatic to illustrate how the wounded Britishnationalist-imperialist pride works. It's very primitive. Real situation israther the opposite, when there was a storm of righteous indignation in theBritish national mass media, nobody in Russia noticed that, because the BBC /Telegraph's fiction was primarily intended to cheat domestic public. Andtoday most of the Russians have no idea about the story, I personally amnot typical in this sense because I'm reading English-speaking media closely.Recently the British myth was developed further: The Telegraph is lying nowthat Putin personally said it, not his spokesman<http://archive.is/UUsDn>.Most of the 'imperialist' British boobs who respond to this story usuallystaunchly avoid to discuss the very fact of fiction, but instead are tryingto argue that they are great but not a small island :)===========Oleg, I am sorry if it offends you, but DVH is correct in all he said.

Actually, Ophelia, - A lot of what Oleg says is right. When Britanniadid indeed rule the waves, we were "Great". Times change, and we are nolonger. Some things do not change in the real world however, physicalgeography being among them. Britain is not a geographically smallisland. In fact it is the fifth largest island on the planet (by area).It is approximately the same size as Japan, but has approximately halfthe population, so it is not particularly overcrowded.These facts are somewhat malleable when used by the "Establishment" -when raising tax, we are indeed "Great" and must remain so, whenthreatened, we are a "small island", when the home counties come underpopulation pressure we are "overcrowded", when celebrating, we are "agreen and pleasant land", when commiserating, we are "dark satanic".Trying not to ramble, in summary - beware the Establishment and theirMSM mouthpieces. Always look behind the headline story and ask "whobenefits" before taking their message at face value.

Poor Oleg. You really don't get it.Most Brits have never heard of Peskov.They have no idea what was said or what wasn't said.Russia doesn't feature heavily in their thoughts.One might even say that most Brits don't care about Russia.Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

Such a reaction is symptomatic to illustrate how the wounded Britishnationalist-imperialist pride works. It's very primitive. Real situationis rather the opposite, when there was a storm of righteous indignationin the British national mass media, nobody in Russia noticed that,because the BBC /Telegraph's fiction was primarily intended to cheat domestic public. Andtoday most of the Russians have no idea about the story, I personally amnot typical in this sense because I'm reading English-speaking media closely.Recently the British myth was developed further: The Telegraph is lyingnow that Putin personally said it, not his spokesman<http://archive.is/UUsDn>.Most of the 'imperialist' British boobs who respond to this storyusually staunchly avoid to discuss the very fact of fiction, but insteadare trying to argue that they are great but not a small island :)

Poor Oleg. You really don't get it.Most Brits have never heard of Peskov.They have no idea what was said or what wasn't said.Russia doesn't feature heavily in their thoughts.One might even say that most Brits don't care about Russia.Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

Such a reaction is symptomatic to illustrate how the wounded Britishnationalist-imperialist pride works. It's very primitive. Real situationis rather the opposite, when there was a storm of righteous indignationin the British national mass media, nobody in Russia noticed that,because the BBC /Telegraph's fiction was primarily intended to cheat domestic public. Andtoday most of the Russians have no idea about the story, I personally amnot typical in this sense because I'm reading English-speaking media closely.Recently the British myth was developed further: The Telegraph is lyingnow that Putin personally said it, not his spokesman<http://archive.is/UUsDn>.Most of the 'imperialist' British boobs who respond to this storyusually staunchly avoid to discuss the very fact of fiction, but insteadare trying to argue that they are great but not a small island :)

Poor Oleg. You really don't get it.Most Brits have never heard of Peskov.They have no idea what was said or what wasn't said.Russia doesn't feature heavily in their thoughts.One might even say that most Brits don't care about Russia.Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

Such a reaction is symptomatic to illustrate how the wounded Britishnationalist-imperialist pride works. It's very primitive. Real situationis rather the opposite, when there was a storm of righteous indignationin the British national mass media, nobody in Russia noticed that,because the BBC /Telegraph's fiction was primarily intended to cheat domestic public. Andtoday most of the Russians have no idea about the story, I personally amnot typical in this sense because I'm reading English-speaking media closely.Recently the British myth was developed further: The Telegraph is lyingnow that Putin personally said it, not his spokesman<http://archive.is/UUsDn>.Most of the 'imperialist' British boobs who respond to this storyusually staunchly avoid to discuss the very fact of fiction, but insteadare trying to argue that they are great but not a small island :)

GDP of Russia 1.1 Trillion

hey, that's small...real small, for the biggest country in theuniverse

Post by JonathanGDP of UK 2.76Germany 3.4France 2.4India 2.2Italy 1.8Brazil 1.5South Korea 1.3Spain 1.2Australia 1.2Mexico 1.1Considering the UK is a small island andRussia is half the planet, you have nothingto brag about.

pooty is desperately trying to make it biggerer

Post by JonathanPutin has turned Russia intoanother Mexico, only Mexico has an...improvingeconomy.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)Considering Russian GDP was...1.8...just two years agoI'd say a couple more years of Putin and Russia willjoin the ranks of the third-world pretty soon.The sooner, the better for the world.

Poor Oleg. You really don't get it.Most Brits have never heard of Peskov.They have no idea what was said or what wasn't said.Russia doesn't feature heavily in their thoughts.One might even say that most Brits don't care about Russia.Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

Such a reaction is symptomatic to illustrate how the wounded Britishnationalist-imperialist pride works. It's very primitive. Real situationis rather the opposite, when there was a storm of righteous indignationin the British national mass media, nobody in Russia noticed that,because the BBC /Telegraph's fiction was primarily intended to cheat domestic public. Andtoday most of the Russians have no idea about the story, I personally amnot typical in this sense because I'm reading English-speaking media closely.Recently the British myth was developed further: The Telegraph is lyingnow that Putin personally said it, not his spokesman<http://archive.is/UUsDn>.Most of the 'imperialist' British boobs who respond to this storyusually staunchly avoid to discuss the very fact of fiction, but insteadare trying to argue that they are great but not a small island :)

GDP of Russia 1.1 Trillion

hey, that's small...real small, for the biggest country in theuniverse

Post by JonathanGDP of UK 2.76Germany 3.4France 2.4India 2.2Italy 1.8Brazil 1.5South Korea 1.3Spain 1.2Australia 1.2Mexico 1.1Considering the UK is a small island andRussia is half the planet, you have nothingto brag about.

pooty is desperately trying to make it biggerer

If you look at how WW2 started, Hitler createda booming German economy, like Putin did in Russiabut only for a few years.

So Hitler sent in his 'little brown men' to annexSudetanland, taking part of Czechoslovakia.Then on to Poland and Europe.

Putin stole his little green men strategy from Hitlerhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudetendeutsches_Freikorps

Just like Putin, boom, taking Crimea, sending in his'Freikorps' to E. Ukraine and now Syria.

Post by JonathanPutin has turned Russia intoanother Mexico, only Mexico has an...improvingeconomy.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)Considering Russian GDP was...1.8...just two years agoI'd say a couple more years of Putin and Russia willjoin the ranks of the third-world pretty soon.The sooner, the better for the world.

hey, that's small...real small, for the biggest country in theuniverse

Post by JonathanGDP of UK 2.76Germany 3.4France 2.4India 2.2Italy 1.8Brazil 1.5South Korea 1.3Spain 1.2Australia 1.2Mexico 1.1Considering the UK is a small island andRussia is half the planet, you have nothingto brag about.

pooty is desperately trying to make it biggerer

If you look at how WW2 started, Hitler createda booming German economy, like Putin did in Russiabut only for a few years.So Hitler sent in his 'little brown men' to annexSudetanland, taking part of Czechoslovakia.Then on to Poland and Europe.Putin stole his little green men strategy from Hitlerhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudetendeutsches_FreikorpsJust like Putin, boom, taking Crimea, sending in his'Freikorps' to E. Ukraine and now Syria.Who says history never repeats?Will Putin end up in a bunker too, when his time comes?

hey, that's small...real small, for the biggest country in theuniverse

Post by JonathanGDP of UK 2.76Germany 3.4France 2.4India 2.2Italy 1.8Brazil 1.5South Korea 1.3Spain 1.2Australia 1.2Mexico 1.1Considering the UK is a small island andRussia is half the planet, you have nothingto brag about.

pooty is desperately trying to make it biggerer

If you look at how WW2 started, Hitler createda booming German economy, like Putin did in Russiabut only for a few years.So Hitler sent in his 'little brown men' to annexSudetanland, taking part of Czechoslovakia.Then on to Poland and Europe.Putin stole his little green men strategy from Hitlerhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudetendeutsches_FreikorpsJust like Putin, boom, taking Crimea, sending in his'Freikorps' to E. Ukraine and now Syria.Who says history never repeats?Will Putin end up in a bunker too, when his time comes?

i'm glad it is not only me!fortunately america has a strong decisive leader

BWAAAAAHAAAAAAAhaaaaaahaahahahahhhahhahahahahahha!!!!!!

--"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayedand degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinksthat nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who hasnothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is moreimportant than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature,and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by theexertions of better men than himself."--John Stuart Mill

hey, that's small...real small, for the biggest country in theuniverse

Post by JonathanGDP of UK 2.76Germany 3.4France 2.4India 2.2Italy 1.8Brazil 1.5South Korea 1.3Spain 1.2Australia 1.2Mexico 1.1Considering the UK is a small island andRussia is half the planet, you have nothingto brag about.

pooty is desperately trying to make it biggerer

If you look at how WW2 started, Hitler createda booming German economy, like Putin did in Russiabut only for a few years.So Hitler sent in his 'little brown men' to annexSudetanland, taking part of Czechoslovakia.Then on to Poland and Europe.Putin stole his little green men strategy from Hitlerhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudetendeutsches_FreikorpsJust like Putin, boom, taking Crimea, sending in his'Freikorps' to E. Ukraine and now Syria.Who says history never repeats?Will Putin end up in a bunker too, when his time comes?

i'm glad it is not only me!fortunately america has a strong decisive leader

BWAAAAAHAAAAAAAhaaaaaahaahahahahhhahhahahahahahha!!!!!!--"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayedand degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinksthat nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who hasnothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is moreimportant than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature,and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by theexertions of better men than himself."--John Stuart Mill

Post by JonathanIf you look at how WW2 started, Hitler createda booming German economy, like Putin did in Russiabut only for a few years.So Hitler sent in his 'little brown men' to annexSudetanland, taking part of Czechoslovakia.Then on to Poland and Europe.Putin stole his little green men strategy from Hitlerhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudetendeutsches_FreikorpsJust like Putin, boom, taking Crimea, sending in his'Freikorps' to E. Ukraine and now Syria.Who says history never repeats?Will Putin end up in a bunker too, when his time comes?

Not unless we get a lot better leader of the free world than NevilleObama...

Post by JonathanIf you look at how WW2 started, Hitler createda booming German economy, like Putin did in Russiabut only for a few years.So Hitler sent in his 'little brown men' to annexSudetanland, taking part of Czechoslovakia.Then on to Poland and Europe.Putin stole his little green men strategy from Hitlerhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudetendeutsches_FreikorpsJust like Putin, boom, taking Crimea, sending in his'Freikorps' to E. Ukraine and now Syria.Who says history never repeats?Will Putin end up in a bunker too, when his time comes?

Not unless we get a lot better leader of the free world than NevilleObama...

Poor Oleg. You really don't get it.Most Brits have never heard of Peskov.They have no idea what was said or what wasn't said.Russia doesn't feature heavily in their thoughts.One might even say that most Brits don't care aboutRussia. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

Such a reaction is symptomatic to illustrate how thewounded British nationalist-imperialist pride works.It's very primitive. Real situation is rather theopposite, when there was a storm of righteousindignation in the British national mass media, nobodyin Russia noticed that, because the BBC /Telegraph's fiction was primarily intended to cheatdomestic public. And today most of the Russians have noidea about the story, I personally am not typical inthis sense because I'm reading English-speaking mediaclosely.Recently the British myth was developed further: TheTelegraph is lying now that Putin personally said it,not his spokesman <http://archive.is/UUsDn>.Most of the 'imperialist' British boobs who respond tothis story usually staunchly avoid to discuss the veryfact of fiction, but instead are trying to argue thatthey are great but not a small island :)

Poor Oleg. You really don't get it.Most Brits have never heard of Peskov.They have no idea what was said or what wasn't said.Russia doesn't feature heavily in their thoughts.One might even say that most Brits don't care aboutRussia. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

Such a reaction is symptomatic to illustrate how thewounded British nationalist-imperialist pride works.It's very primitive. Real situation is rather theopposite, when there was a storm of righteousindignation in the British national mass media, nobodyin Russia noticed that, because the BBC / Telegraph's fiction wasprimarily intended to cheatdomestic public. And today most of the Russians have noidea about the story, I personally am not typical inthis sense because I'm reading English-speaking mediaclosely.Recently the British myth was developed further: TheTelegraph is lying now that Putin personally said it,not his spokesman <http://archive.is/UUsDn>.Most of the 'imperialist' British boobs who respond tothis story usually staunchly avoid to discuss the veryfact of fiction, but instead are trying to argue thatthey are great but not a small island :)

GDP of Russia 1.1 TrillionGDP of UK 2.76

Less delusional picture looks like this <http://u.to/lsMKDw>

Does that include some of Ukraine's GDP? What about bits of Georgia younow own?

Does that include some of Ukraine's GDP? What about bitsof Georgia you now own?

As a British imperialist, DVH sees those events like a Russia's imperialistdevelopment, and this causes DVH a great pain, he or she believes it's unfairthat the Russian empire seems to be expanding whereas the British empirecollapsed, and the British people are humiliated by the EU's dictate, the roleof America's lackey, the mass immigration etc. Also, DVH usually promotes herea line close to the UK establishment's party line, and for the establishment,Russia is a very appropriate 'safe' target to redirect any discontent of theBritish people to a path that in no way can threat the British ruling elite.If the plebs were more passionate about Putin then there would be no Brexit ;)

There's also a false premise that Russia is somewhat similar to Britain in theimperialist sense. Actually, even the former Russian empire was arrangedmuch differently than the British one. And what happens near Russia currentlyhas nothing to do with the Russian imperialism, it's rather a process of post-Soviet stabilization where all issues are of local nature. It's just immoral torant about 'Russia annexed this and that' while ignoring the specific issuesthat caused the people on the ground to turn to Russia for protection.

The irrational post-imperial British jealousy towards Russia is the main thingthat makes the UK-Russia relation so toxic in gov't level (the new governmentin the UK seems to follow this silly line, so no any improvement is upcoming).

Post by Oleg Smirnovthe roleof America's lackey, the mass immigration etc. Also, DVH usually promotes herea line close to the UK establishment's party line, and for the establishment,Russia is a very appropriate 'safe' target to redirect any discontent of theBritish people to a path that in no way can threat the British ruling elite.If the plebs were more passionate about Putin then there would be no Brexit ;)There's also a false premise that Russia is somewhat similar to Britain in theimperialist sense. Actually, even the former Russian empire was arrangedmuch differently than the British one. And what happens near Russia currentlyhas nothing to do with the Russian imperialism, it's rather a process of post-Soviet stabilization where all issues are of local nature. It's just immoral torant about 'Russia annexed this and that' while ignoring the specific issuesthat caused the people on the ground to turn to Russia for protection.The irrational post-imperial British jealousy towards Russia is the main thingthat makes the UK-Russia relation so toxic in gov't level (the new governmentin the UK seems to follow this silly line, so no any improvement is upcoming).

Does that include some of Ukraine's GDP? What about bitsof Georgia you now own?

As a British imperialist, DVH sees those events like a Russia's imperialistdevelopment, and this causes DVH a great pain, he or she believes it's unfairthat the Russian empire seems to be expanding whereas the British empirecollapsed, and the British people are humiliated by the EU's dictate, the roleof America's lackey, the mass immigration etc. Also, DVH usually promotes herea line close to the UK establishment's party line, and for theestablishment,Russia is a very appropriate 'safe' target to redirect any discontent of theBritish people to a path that in no way can threat the British ruling elite.If the plebs were more passionate about Putin then there would be no Brexit ;)There's also a false premise that Russia is somewhat similar to Britain in theimperialist sense. Actually, even the former Russian empire was arrangedmuch differently than the British one. And what happens near Russia currentlyhas nothing to do with the Russian imperialism, it's rather a process of post-Soviet stabilization where all issues are of local nature. It's just immoral torant about 'Russia annexed this and that' while ignoring the specific issuesthat caused the people on the ground to turn to Russia for protection.The irrational post-imperial British jealousy towards Russia is the main thingthat makes the UK-Russia relation so toxic in gov't level (the new governmentin the UK seems to follow this silly line, so no any improvement is upcoming).

Does that include some of Ukraine's GDP? What about bitsof Georgia you now own?

As a British imperialist, DVH sees those events like a Russia's imperialistdevelopment, and this causes DVH a great pain, he or she believes it'sunfairthat the Russian empire seems to be expanding whereas the British empirecollapsed, and the British people are humiliated by the EU's dictate, theroleof America's lackey, the mass immigration etc. Also, DVH usually promotesherea line close to the UK establishment's party line, and for theestablishment,Russia is a very appropriate 'safe' target to redirect any discontent of theBritish people to a path that in no way can threat the British ruling elite.If the plebs were more passionate about Putin then there would be no Brexit;)

There's also a false premise that Russia is somewhat similar to Britain intheimperialist sense. Actually, even the former Russian empire was arrangedmuch differently than the British one. And what happens near Russiacurrentlyhas nothing to do with the Russian imperialism, it's rather a process ofpost-Soviet stabilization where all issues are of local nature. It's just immoraltorant about 'Russia annexed this and that' while ignoring the specific issuesthat caused the people on the ground to turn to Russia for protection.

The irrational post-imperial British jealousy towards Russia is the mainthingthat makes the UK-Russia relation so toxic in gov't level (the newgovernmentin the UK seems to follow this silly line, so no any improvement isupcoming).

Poor Oleg. You really don't get it.Most Brits have never heard of Peskov.They have no idea what was said or what wasn't said.Russia doesn't feature heavily in their thoughts.One might even say that most Brits don't care aboutRussia. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

Such a reaction is symptomatic to illustrate how thewounded British nationalist-imperialist pride works.It's very primitive. Real situation is rather theopposite, when there was a storm of righteousindignation in the British national mass media, nobodyin Russia noticed that, because the BBC / Telegraph's fiction wasprimarily intended to cheatdomestic public. And today most of the Russians have noidea about the story, I personally am not typical inthis sense because I'm reading English-speaking mediaclosely.Recently the British myth was developed further: TheTelegraph is lying now that Putin personally said it,not his spokesman <http://archive.is/UUsDn>.Most of the 'imperialist' British boobs who respond tothis story usually staunchly avoid to discuss the veryfact of fiction, but instead are trying to argue thatthey are great but not a small island :)

GDP of Russia 1.1 TrillionGDP of UK 2.76

Less delusional picture looks like this <http://u.to/lsMKDw>

Oh you mean the GPD per PPP, instead of nomimal, whichgives these numbers?

GDP per capita based on PPP 2016

Russia $25,411 (ranked #50 in the world)

Czech 31,549Trinidad 32,635Korea 36,511

UK 41,159

Or do you mean GDP per capita....Growth?Where Russia is dropping like a bomb.

Poor Oleg. You really don't get it.Most Brits have never heard of Peskov.They have no idea what was said or what wasn't said.Russia doesn't feature heavily in their thoughts.One might even say that most Brits don't care about Russia.Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

Such a reaction is symptomatic to illustrate how the wounded Britishnationalist-imperialist pride works.

That's right, Olly.

When he says he doesn't care, it means he really really cares.

When a woman says no, she means yes.

Blackbirds are actually white.

In short, the world is constantly trying to trick Oleg, but he's toobright to be taken in.

Post by Oleg SmirnovIt's very primitive. Real situationis rather the opposite, when there was a storm of righteous indignationin the British national mass media, nobody in Russia noticed that,because the BBC /Telegraph's fiction was primarily intended to cheat domestic public. Andtoday most of the Russians have no idea about the story, I personally amnot typical in this sense because I'm reading English-speaking media closely.Recently the British myth was developed further: The Telegraph is lyingnow that Putin personally said it, not his spokesman<http://archive.is/UUsDn>.Most of the 'imperialist' British boobs who respond to this storyusually staunchly avoid to discuss the very fact of fiction, but insteadare trying to argue that they are great but not a small island :)

Poor Oleg. You really don't get it.Most Brits have never heard of Peskov.They have no idea what was said or what wasn't said.Russia doesn't feature heavily in their thoughts.One might even say that most Brits don't care about Russia.Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

The days when Russia ran the trade unions in Britain are long over.Mainly the Brits worry about their jobs, pay and the encroaching'refugees' and all the day to day stuff.

"scott s." wrote in messagework with the United States.""Everything will probably never be OK. But we have to tryfor it."Dmitry Peskov, Mr Putin's official spokesman, tells itlike it is: "Britain is 'just a small island . no onepays any attention to them.'"

Mr Peskov never said that. It was a psyop implemented by BBC and The Telegraphoutlets likely on request from the UK government. Mr Cameron wanted to promotethe UK in a pompous speech during G20 summit in St Pete at the time.I think, the British government started to feel that its role in the worldaffairs is somewhat declining, and tried to 'improve' the situation through aPR effort. Mr Cameron needed a pretext for that. Thus, the mass media folksfabricated the fiction of the alleged Peskov's statement in order to make theCameron's speech look like a noble answer to a blunt Russian insult.

what 'story' smeary? i've heard no story other that pootin invadinghere, there and everywhere...and killing defenseless children...and bombing aid trucks....and starving millions...and usingn. korean slaves...and the whole country living on smearnov...

and stuff about how poor the rooshans are...

Post by Oleg SmirnovRead more here <http://tinyurl.com/ztm8eqm>, <http://archive.is/UUsDn>.Most of the British believe it was really said. Since then, this 'small island'has become a kind of meme, and people like Byker use it to troll the British.

"scott s." wrote in messagework with the United States.""Everything will probably never be OK. But we have to tryfor it."Dmitry Peskov, Mr Putin's official spokesman, tells itlike it is: "Britain is 'just a small island . no onepays any attention to them.'"

Mr Peskov never said that. It was a psyop implemented by BBC and The Telegraphoutlets likely on request from the UK government. Mr Cameron wanted to promotethe UK in a pompous speech during G20 summit in St Pete at the time.I think, the British government started to feel that its role in the worldaffairs is somewhat declining, and tried to 'improve' the situation through aPR effort. Mr Cameron needed a pretext for that. Thus, the mass media folksfabricated the fiction of the alleged Peskov's statement in order to make theCameron's speech look like a noble answer to a blunt Russian insult.Read more here <http://tinyurl.com/ztm8eqm>, <http://archive.is/UUsDn>.Most of the British believe it was really said. Since then, this 'small island'has become a kind of meme, and people like Byker use it to troll the British.

Probably the most influential weekly political magazines in the United Kingdomare The Economist, The Spectator, and The New Statesman. All have publishedtheir latest editions in the last couple of days. Here are the results. (OS:Click the link to view the pictures.) Putin's 'winning in propaganda' it saysat the bottom of The Spectator's cover. I think not.

...

English lady takes a crap (Russian saying)

About 'winning in propaganda', - it's the same great British gimmick as thosecockyly ostentatious claims 'they mockes us', 'they insulted us', 'they calledus a small island' etc etc

Dmitry Peskov, Mr Putin's official spokesman, tells it likeit is: "Britain is 'just a small island . no one pays anyattention to them.'"

Mr Peskov never said that. It was a psyop implemented by BBC and TheTelegraph outlets likely on request from the UK government. Mr Cameronwanted to promote the UK in a pompous speech during G20 summit in St Pete atthe time.I think, the British government started to feel that its role in the worldaffairs is somewhat declining, and tried to 'improve' the situation througha PR effort. Mr Cameron needed a pretext for that. Thus, the mass mediafolks fabricated the fiction of the alleged Peskov's statement in order tomake the Cameron's speech look like a noble answer to a blunt Russianinsult.Read more here <http://tinyurl.com/ztm8eqm>, <http://archive.is/UUsDn>. Mostof the British believe it was really said. Since then, this 'small island'has become a kind of meme, and people like Byker use it to troll the British.

The United Kingdom's Daily Telegraph national newspaper has published a claimthat British troops in Latvia for a training exercise may have been set up byRussia in an attempt to undermine the presence of NATO reinforcements in theregion.

The newspaper claims two members of the Grenadier Guards regiment wereattacked <http://migre.me/vpm0o> by a gang while eating in a McDonald's fastfood restaurant, and that a professional camera crew just happened to be onhand waiting to film the incident. ..

"When the fighting was over, a Latvian accompanying the soldiers followed thefilm crew and saw them go into a media outlet known to be sympathetic toRussia," the paper claims.

Neither the soldiers nor their Latvian friend were identified and the name ofthe pro-Russian media was not given.

An anonymous "defence source" quoted by the newspaper said: "Our assessment isthat this is clearly a set up: 'Lets go and make these guys look like thugsand film it.'"

Nor was the Telegraph the only UK newspaper to report the incident as beingthe work of Kremlin schemers. The major circulation tabloid The Sun got in onthe act too <http://migre.me/vpm5e>. Again, only anonymous sources werequoted...

However, the father of a local involved in the alleged brawl tells a verydifferent story. Edmunds Aizkalns told LSM Wednesday his 23-year-old sonAksels, a highly-educated administrator at a leading law firm, was punched byone of the British troops and is currently in hospital undergoing an operationas a result.

"It only happened last night and when I saw the Telegraph story this morningI couldn't believe my eyes," Aizkalns said.

"My son is in no regards pro-Russian or pro-Soviet. He's not a hooligan,he's an ordinary, professional person."

"The provocation was 100% from the British side, he said. They were behavingidiotically and just looking for a fight. They were completely drunk. Therewas no camera crew, but of course people filmed what was happening on theirmobile phones. Hopefully in the next two or three days that will come outand people will be able to see for themselves what happened."

If Aizkalns' story is true, it raises the question of how a UK nationalnewspaper could have so quickly seized upon the theory that a brawl in a Rigaburger joint was a sophisticated Russian disinformation campaign. ..

...

Since they smartassly blame Russia for that, I suggest to read this<https://fuckinglatvia.wordpress.com/2007/08/page/3/> in order to get a morerealistic picture.

.. The story about how the Russian propaganda provoked NATO troops to thebrawl includes a few inconsistencies. According to a Sputnik's source, thebrawl between the British soldiers and the people with cameras at McDonaldstook place on November 1 at six o'clock. The article on The Telegraph's website appeared at 10 pm local time, about six hours after the incident, whilethe mysterious Russia-friendly local media has not yet published a video ofthe brawl. I.e. the alleged dirt on the British troops yet has not beenissued, but the statement that the incident was a Russia's provocation hasalready been made.

Finally, in order to portray the NATO soldiers stationed in Riga like bulliesand hooligans, it's not necessary to arrange a provocation with video cameras:the Britons cope with this task well on their own. In early June, two of themgot drunk and danced on the roof of a Riga taxi car <http://sptnkne.ws/cBk4>,and in 2014 the mayor of Ventspils, Aivars Lembergs, even wrote an open letter<http://sptnkne.ws/cBk5> in which he complained that the NATO servicemen areurinating on the storefronts, tearing flowers in the urban flowerbeds, andbasically behave as aggressive invaders to whom the law / civic norms do notapply.

<http://tinyurl.com/hnhut52> kasjauns.lv

PHOTO evidence. Drunk British soldier in the Old Town beats a Latvian.. Surprisingly, however, the incident of the last night, was blatantlydistorted and in a mendacious manner misrepresented in the British media. Theysay that the fighting was provoked by some local pro-Russian activists, aimedto undermine British soldiers honor. ..

...

The local Latvian media describes the incident in detail, there was a group ofabout 30 drunk British troops "very aggressive and provocative" and it startedwhen one of them stuck to a single, standing separately, Latvian guy with noreason punching his face and breaking his nose etc, there were no any Russian-speaking persons nor any 'pro-Russian activists' involved in the party.

'Britain will be ready for WAR against Russia' UK defence boss squares up toPutin / BRITISH defence chiefs have squared up to the "challenge" of VladimirPutin - promising we will be ready for war against Russia in two years.

Trump-Putin alliance sparks diplomatic crisis as British ministers demandassurances from US over Russia

Steven Swinford, Ben Riley-Smith | 12 NOVEMBER 2016

.. In a significant foreign policy split, officials admitted that Britain willhave some "very difficult" conversations with the President-elect in comingmonths over his approach to Russia. ..

Mr Johnson is expected to fly to the US within weeks to meet with seniorfigures in Mr Trump's administration and make clear that Britain believes thatMr Assad must go. ..

...

What is a rational interest of the UK government? Do they want to strengthentheir friendship with those Sunni dictatorships of the Gulf in this way? Or dothey just want to be 'against Russia' wherever possible?

Post by Oleg Smirnov<http://tinyurl.com/hlskwkh> telegraph.co.ukTrump-Putin alliance sparks diplomatic crisis as British ministers demandassurances from US over Russia

what 'alliance'?everything that follows is built on speculation and bs...

Post by Oleg SmirnovSteven Swinford, Ben Riley-Smith | 12 NOVEMBER 2016.. In a significant foreign policy split, officials admitted that Britain willhave some "very difficult" conversations with the President-elect in comingmonths over his approach to Russia. ..

what 'officials'?

Post by Oleg SmirnovMr Johnson is expected to fly to the US within weeks to meet with seniorfigures in Mr Trump's administration and make clear that Britain believes thatMr Assad must go. ..

so does every civilised person...

Post by Oleg SmirnovWhat is a rational interest of the UK government? Do they want to strengthentheir friendship with those Sunni dictatorships of the Gulf in this way? Or dothey just want to be 'against Russia' wherever possible?

why can the whole of vast russia not provide a standard of livingfor its citizens any more than half that of a 'small island' nota greater gdp despite having twice the population and endlessnatural resources.?